To the Editor:
I felt the need to respond to some of the claims Benjamin Taylor made in his article (The Dartmouth, Jan. 8) on Howard Dean. Although capturing Saddam Hussein might eventually make our troops in Iraq safer, there is no indication that Saddam supported Osama Bin Laden and no indication that he possessed any weapons of mass destruction. Capturing Saddam doesn't make us safer from terrorists and doesn't make us safer from a nuclear or biological attack from Iraq (Saddam didn't have any weapons of mass destruction). He is, however, a distraction that is diverting our attention from countries like Pakistan and North Korea, who could conceivably supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.
Howard Dean also said that we shouldn't presuppose the guilt of Osama Bin Laden. He said this because he believes in the rule of law, a principle upon which our country and our freedom is based. If we don't believe in the rule of law, how are we any better than repressive despotic regimes we attack?
Howard Dean is a strong, moral leader. Regardless of the legal wrangling that surrounded Dean's support of Civil Union legislation, he stood up for what he believed despite the fact that the polls pointed the other way, and he still stands behind that decision.
As we have seen from the election of President Bush, the American people don't care if the candidate doesn't know much about foreign policy, and they don't pay much attention to lies, so long as they concern weapons of mass destruction and not sex.
What we Americans want is a President who will stand up for what he believes and make ethical decision based on his personal morality. We want a leader who will point the country in the right direction.
